Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 September 2



Image:Lakesidelogo1.jpg
This is a logo but tagged as PD-self and the user is no longer active to confirm this. Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cyridgelogo.jpg
This appears to be a high school team logo -- the uploader is absent and unable to provide details as to why it is claimed to be PD-self Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:BedbreakfastHome_official_logo.png
This is a logo and unlikely to be correctly licensed as PD-self -- the user is currently absent and unable to provide further details Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Image-HarryPotter6Wallpaper.jpg
collection of copyright pictures from the movie photoshopped into one image; very unlikely to be PD-self Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this would be a derivative work, so the uploader doesn't really own this. -- 'Kanonkas' : Talk  07:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Smu logoc.jpg
It seems unlikely that the uploader is the copyright holder and is orphaned. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Graya.jpeg
Orphaned UE image that uploader says he got from a website that says it is in the public domain. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Beloved witch.jpg
Modern commercial book cover. Unlikely to be public domain. J Milburn (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sacredevil.jpg
Modern commercial book cover. Unlikely to be public domain. J Milburn (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sarikainsacredevil.JPG
Low resolution, no meta-data, uploaded with other apparently non-free images claimed to be free. J Milburn (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sacredevilposter.jpg
Poster for a modern commercial film, unlikely to be PD. Uploaded with a batch of other apparently stolen images. J Milburn (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ipsitaanddeepta.jpg
Low resolution, no meta-data, posed. Uploaded with a batch of other apparently stolen images. J Milburn (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ipsita Roy Chakraverti2.png
Looks like a screenshot. Low resolution, no meta-data. Uploaded with a batch of other apparently stolen images. J Milburn (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the OTRS ticket of this image was false/not for this image, see the Commons image which is now deleted. This is likely a screen cap. -- 'Kanonkas' : Talk  07:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pollock composit.jpg
Blatantly not public domain- this is a work of art from 1950. J Milburn (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Important image of an important figure from 20th century art. This - an image of Lavender Mist (albeit a slightly cropped version) is one of the five or six most important Jackson Pollock paintings that he produced. The image is among a few vitally important means of visually demonstrating Pollock's work...Modernist (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Still isn't free, and as such has been deleted. If you can come up with a fair use rationale, drop me a line and I'll restore it. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:ZABhutto 2.jpg
Looks like an old image, low resolution. I doubt the uploader owns the rights to this image. J Milburn (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:ZABhutto 3.jpg
Looks like an old image, low resolution. I doubt the uploader owns the rights to this image. J Milburn (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Genelia tamil.jpg
Looks like a publicity shot, no meta-data. I doubt the uploader owns the rights to this image. J Milburn (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Namitha tamil.jpg
Posed, low resolution, no meta-data. Looks as if it may have been taken from elsewhere. J Milburn (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sandhya tamil.jpg
Looks like a screenshot. Low resolution, no metadata. I doubt the uploader is the copyright holder. J Milburn (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Britney spears image.jpg
I'm struggling to see how a 17 year old from Britain owns an image of Britney Spears apparently taken at an awards ceremony in 2004. J Milburn (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to weigh in on this one, keep the image is should stay on there remove it only if you can find it somewhere else otherwise assume good faith and just trust that it is not copyright. Saying "I'm struggling to see how a 17 year old from Britain owns an image of Britney Spears apparently taken at an awards ceremony in 2004" who cares the world is a small place it is very plausible that can happen. Prove that it is copyright.--Theoneintraining (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd normally assume good faith, given the presence of meta-data... but the user in question has a long history of problematic uploads. So, delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt the uploader owns this image, the user have got a lot of warnings about their image uploading. Also, the image is very low res for such an image, usually they would be in higher res so a delete. -- 'Kanonkas' : Talk  07:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As said above, the user is "known" for having upload issues. Have a look at this; I'm sure it might be one of those images. delete — Do U(knome)?  yes...or no 23:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gopika tamil.jpg
Looks like a posed publicity shot. Low resolution, no meta-data. Uploader is probably not the copyright holder. J Milburn (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Aurora Butterfly -daylight equivalent.jpg
Despite a request on the uploader's talk page, evidence of the GFDL permission has not been provided. J Milburn (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Aurora Butterfly -fluorescent.jpg
Despite a request on the uploader's talk page, evidence of the GFDL permission has not been provided. J Milburn (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Elmer Litchfield.jpg
Source says nothing of the image being public domain, and attempts to contact the uploader have come to nothing. J Milburn (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Firstmenonthemoon.jpg
This is a painting from 1963. The uploader probably does not own the rights to it. J Milburn (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Airbus343jps.jpg
One can't release into PD an image which isn't theirs. Any release into PD, must be accompanied by OTRS evidence. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 16:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:AirBalticFokker50.jpg
To release into PD, there should be some OTRS evidence from the author of the photograph. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 16:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Aff Surv Spirituality Cover.jpg
As this is an album cover, it can't be PD. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 16:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Y erolsabancı.jpg
Uploader needs to document ownership. Adoniscik(t, c) 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lon-Brum-Centenary.jpg
Souvenir is a 1938 work of London Birmingham Railway. No indication that copyrights were transfered to Lordprice Collection, the claimed copyright holder; Lordprice may have created this version of the image (e.g. scan/digitalization), but the creation of a derivative work does not transfer rights or allow Lordprice to license as CC-by-SA 2.5. No indication that Lordprice has even released their version as CC (source terms indicates full copyright retention). Uploader was, but no indication they indeed work for this company or, if they do, are authorized to license on its behalf. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe this is an expired Crown Copyright. The London and Birmingham Railway (the copyright holder) was ultimately subsumed by the British Rail and the British Transport Commission. This would mean a 50 year post-publication expiration I believe. I defer to anyone with a better understanding of UK copyright law though. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the link to the image. If the above is true then I don't see a problem using it.  The site claims copyright on a wide range of images, some as old as 170 years - which surely they can't hold copyright to? Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * — expired Crown copyright. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Answers_to_Non-Muslims'_Common_Questions_about_Islam.jpg
This image is orphaned; claims to be a scan of a book cover, but listed as PD Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Junkers JU-90 Image 3.jpg
Image summary states permission to use content on Wikipedia only from uploader to a forum. No evidence that forum uploader is copyright holder, image appears to be a book scan. MilborneOne (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have forwarded the email from original copyright owner to permissions-en@wikimedia.org perseus71 (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There has not been any OTRS tag added to this or the below images so they have all been deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Junkers JU-90.jpg
Image summary states permission to use content on Wikipedia only from uploader to a forum. No evidence that forum uploader is copyright holder, image appears to be a book scan. MilborneOne (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have forwarded the email from original copyright owner to permissions-en@wikimedia.org perseus71 (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Junkers JU-90 Image 4.jpg
Image summary states permission to use content on Wikipedia only from uploader to a forum. No evidence that forum uploader is copyright holder, image appears to be a book scan. MilborneOne (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Photo found on p. 76 of Air Enthusiast Number 23, December 1983 - March 1984, and shows a Junkers Ju 90 being shot down by a Martin Marauder flown by Wing Commander Dick Maywell of No 14 Squadron RAF off Corsica in July 1943. As such the claims of GFDL licencing claimed by the original uploader seem unlikely - however this photo, taken from an RAF aircraft in combat in 1943 is almost certainly pd-gov-uk.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd contacted the person who had uploaded to the Forums at www.ww2incolor.com. He said he was the owner of those images. I took that in good faith since I have no way of verifying like Nigel did. perseus71 (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no work for hire provision in UK copyright law — unless there is an explicit release or contractual agreement by the creator of a work, then that creator retains copyright. As such, the usual 70 years pma rule applies and the image is still subject to copyright. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't see that work for hire applies in this case. An image taken by an RAF crewmember form an RAF aircraft in combat is surly pd-gov-uk.If it did then there would be no such thing as PD-GOV_UK.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Junkers JU-90 Image 5.jpg
Image summary states permission to use content on Wikipedia only from uploader to a forum. No evidence that forum uploader is copyright holder, image appears to be a book scan. MilborneOne (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The original person who uploaded them on the Forums, said that they have come from PDFs that he owns. I have forwarded his email permission as requested. perseus71 (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Junkers JU-90 V7 with halftrack.jpg
Image summary states permission to use content on Wikipedia only from uploader to a forum. No evidence that forum uploader is copyright holder MilborneOne (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The original person who uploaded them on the Forums, said that they have come from PDFs that he owns. I have forwarded his email permission as requested. perseus71 (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Junkers JU-90 V8.jpg
Image summary states permission to use content on Wikipedia only from uploader to a forum. No evidence that forum uploader is copyright holder MilborneOne (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The original person who uploaded them on the Forums, said that they have come from PDFs that he owns. I have forwarded his email permission as requested. perseus71 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Junkers JU-90 Image 2.jpg
Image summary states permission to use content on Wikipedia only from uploader to a forum. No evidence that forum uploader is copyright holder MilborneOne (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The original person who uploaded them on the Forums, said that they have come from PDFs that he owns. I have forwarded his email permission as requested. perseus71 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)